Coronavirus Thread

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

A quick fag-packet calculation shows that if you averaged a minute for each post, you have spent nearly 35 days of your life posting on here.

 

And I got paid for every minute of it. 

 

Probably why my old employer went bust. 

[shade]

16 minutes ago, Stivo said:

Yes and if you Google you can find that the cdc report includes comorbidities  ( medical conditions ) which were caused by the covid infection, eg renal failure, circulation issues etc.  I am sure that 95% of car crash victims have comorbidities caused by the impact.

What about this from the ONS..

 

"This publication states that between March and June 2020, there have been 46,736 deaths involving COVID-19. 4,476 of these deaths had no pre-existing conditions."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandhospitalisationsbypreexistingconditionandage

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, shade said:

What about this from the ONS..

 

"This publication states that between March and June 2020, there have been 46,736 deaths involving COVID-19. 4,476 of these deaths had no pre-existing conditions."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandhospitalisationsbypreexistingconditionandage

What’s a pre existing condition ?

 

does mild asthma count? 
 

Was delta less discerning ref PEC’s than the original Wuhan in your link ? 

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, shade said:

What about this from the ONS..

 

"This publication states that between March and June 2020, there have been 46,736 deaths involving COVID-19. 4,476 of these deaths had no pre-existing conditions."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandhospitalisationsbypreexistingconditionandage

The Gov website puts no pre existing conditions at between 15 and 20%. That data is obviously old. 

[Stivo]

18 minutes ago, Stivo said:

Yes and if you Google you can find that the cdc report includes comorbidities  ( medical conditions ) which were caused by the covid infection, eg renal failure, circulation issues etc.  I am sure that 95% of car crash victims have comorbidities caused by the impact.

To further point out the absurdity of the cdc quote, about 50% of the covid deaths had a comorbidity of pneumonia/flu.  I think we can rule out flu as levels have been low.

The fact that 1/2 of covid patients develop pneumonia says nothing about the health of the patients prior to catching covid.
 

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, shade said:

What about this from the ONS..

 

"This publication states that between March and June 2020, there have been 46,736 deaths involving COVID-19. 4,476 of these deaths had no pre-existing conditions."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandhospitalisationsbypreexistingconditionandage

[shade]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

The Gov website puts no pre existing conditions at between 15 and 20%. That data is obviously old. 

This is one of the problems with meaningful discussion, the data is so contaminated so as to make it almost useless. There's this study with of over 550,000 patients which shows 70% of deaths had underlying health conditions. I'm unsure if obesity would qualify as a health condition?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209444/

[shade]

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

That actually shows that only 17% of covid 19 cases had no pre existing condition, at the bottom. Nice find. It also doesn't Include obesity (willing to be corrected), which would skew the data further in favour of co-morbidities, which is what the discussion started out as, not health conditions.

Edited 3 January 2022 by shade

[VLC86]

48 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Just ordered some, piece of piss.

Think it’s snot you put in them mate

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, shade said:

That actually shows that only 17% of covid 19 cases had no pre existing condition, at the bottom. Nice find.

It's difficult, as I think Asthma was down as a pre existing condition. Diabetes is the top linked condition but that impact lots of people and not just fat people.

[dsr-burnley]

One problem about assessing this sort of data, is that 60% of the deaths are in people over 80.  How many over 80's don't have some other health condition?  Without further anaylsis, I would say intuitively that being old is the danger here, not having previous conditions.  But it would be interesting to know whether the "healthy old" have been safe all along and only the frail old were in danger.

 

People under 40, only 1% of the deaths. Total 1,297 since the pandemic started.  I think it's fair to say that virtually all of these had another condition, even if they didn't know it.  

 

So the 40-80 band is the interesting one, or perhaps 50-80.  If we had stats showing the difference in outcome between healthy people, chronic but not too bad people, people with dangerous illness, and people with terminal illness, it might give us some better clues.  (It might also show whether excess deaths in fat people is because they are fat, or because being fat has already led to having a pre-existing condition.)

Edited 3 January 2022 by dsr-burnley

[shade]

Just now, dsr-burnley said:

One problem about assessing this sort of data, is that 60% of the deaths are in people over 80.  How many over 80's don't have some other health condition?  Without further anaylsis, I would say intuitively that being old is the danger here, not having previous conditions.  But it would be interesting to know whether the "healthy old" have been safe all along and only the frail old were in danger.

 

People under 40, only 1% of the deaths. Total 1,297 since the pandemic started.  I think it's fair to say that virtually all of these had another condition, even if they didn't know it.  

 

So the 40-80 band is the interesting one, or perhaps 50-80.  If we had stats showing the difference in outcome between healthy people, chronic but not too bad people, people with dangerous illness, and people with terminal illness, it might give us some better clues.

Interesting analysis. Do you feel that given this information, coupled with what we now know about transmission, infection and side effects, the push for under 40s and now even under 18s to be vaccinated and boosted is incorrect? Purely using hindsight.

[Babylon]

Just now, shade said:

Interesting analysis. Do you feel that given this information, coupled with what we now know about transmission, infection and side effects, the push for under 40s and now even under 18s to be vaccinated and boosted is incorrect? Purely using hindsight.

As more data comes for Omicron (and it looks ok so far) that push will stop. The end goal is obviously the same as Flu, those who want it can have it. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, shade said:

Apologies for the creepy comment. It's a very difficult question to answer, with such a nuanced debate. You're asking me to distil all the information I've absorbed in the last 2 years to explain my motivation. There's so much I've seen and disliked, by governments media, corporations, people. When I'm at the laptop instead of on my phone I'll try to write a reasonably concise summary. 

 

One of the core issues is the insistence of the necessity of the vaccine amongst young, healthy people especially children, and the bullying, coercion and manipulation of the population at large. It meanders out to vaccine passports and loss of liberties, big pharmas ties to governments and the media. Then there's the issue of mandates, forcing people to inject themselves with something that (yes very rarely) might kill them, depriving people of livelihoods and abilities to engage in society for a disease with a 99.7% survival rate below the top age bracket, and then add the known side effects of the injection and potential future issues.

 

There's so much. I'll try and summarise it in a bit though.

Thanks for the response.

 

I can understand the worry that people have regarding the vaccine. There's an awful lot of both information and misinformation concerning it out there and it's very easy for someone to get lost, as it were.

 

However, for a fair few reasons (unknown preexisting conditions, long Covid and the decrease, however small, in transmission) I believe I can still cite with a certain amount of confidence that the risk presented by the vaccine is lower to even a "healthy" young human than the disease itself.

 

The societal measures enacted regarding the vaccine are a whole other debate, and a tricky one at that. I guess the conclusion I reach there is that while civil liberties have to be maintained as much as possible, there may come a time where an act of nature no longer offers us that luxury, at least temporarily. Put simply,  I fear what nature can do to us more than what humans can do to each other, and I think the numbers back me up there.

 

57 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure I'd agree the availability of test kits isn't "massively important" or of "low importance". 

 

For example, guidelines state if you're positive, you must self-isolate for 10 days or 7 if you can show a negative LFT on days 6 and 7. Not having LFTs to hand is causing people to self isolate for an additional three days. Spread that across the country and it's a huge amount of lost time where people can work, see family and go out.

 

Whilst the back and forth was pedantic, it's a problem given the isolation rules that are currently in place. As a business owner myself, those extra three days for myself and staff make a huge difference as when I don't work, I don't get paid. This entire forum and all it's sub-forums are irrelevant compared to 5mil+ deaths, uncharacteristic post from yourself if I may be so bold! 

You're right to pull me up for being flippant.

 

However, in my defence when I posted that I had just read that someone saying possibly inaccurate information about availability of LFTs was comparable to viewpoints showing wholesale disregard of the scientific method in terms of a response to misinformation, which I found a bit much tbh.

 

48 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

I think he's saying it's a load of bollox.

Thankfully he went into a little more detail above.

[Stivo]

13 minutes ago, shade said:

What about this from the ONS..

 

"This publication states that between March and June 2020, there have been 46,736 deaths involving COVID-19. 4,476 of these deaths had no pre-existing conditions."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandhospitalisationsbypreexistingconditionandage

Most elderly people have various conditions, raised blood pressure, prostrate, arthritis etc etc.  At that time pre vaccine the majority of deaths would have been in the elderly.

 

equally a surprising number of people are classed as obese (28%)

 

no one disputes that the main risk factor for covid is age, and/or that the risk for the young is low ( catching the wuhan strain doubled your chance of dying that year which of course varies with age, delta was much worse and omicron is slightly less than Wuhan).  

 

You are trying to work backwards to infer that because you have no pre conditions that you are completely safe, that doesn’t seem to be true.  

You are protected by your age primarily.

 

 

[Stivo]

24 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

One problem about assessing this sort of data, is that 60% of the deaths are in people over 80.  How many over 80's don't have some other health condition?  Without further anaylsis, I would say intuitively that being old is the danger here, not having previous conditions.  But it would be interesting to know whether the "healthy old" have been safe all along and only the frail old were in danger.

 

People under 40, only 1% of the deaths. Total 1,297 since the pandemic started.  I think it's fair to say that virtually all of these had another condition, even if they didn't know it.  

 

So the 40-80 band is the interesting one, or perhaps 50-80.  If we had stats showing the difference in outcome between healthy people, chronic but not too bad people, people with dangerous illness, and people with terminal illness, it might give us some better clues.  (It might also show whether excess deaths in fat people is because they are fat, or because being fat has already led to having a pre-existing condition.)

Spot on.

 

This report is a bit old but it tries to do just that  see table 8.1 which compares how common comorbidities are in all deaths vs covid deaths 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf

 

The two significant risk factors seem to be diabetes and hypertension, but even then it’s 14% in all deaths to 20% in covid.

 

 

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

38 minutes ago, shade said:

Interesting analysis. Do you feel that given this information, coupled with what we now know about transmission, infection and side effects, the push for under 40s and now even under 18s to be vaccinated and boosted is incorrect? Purely using hindsight.

If you want me to have a guess, I would say 18-40s correct to vaccinate (if only for peace of mind, and remember it was delta then, not omicron) but not for children.  I suspect going forward that it will be like the flu jab, older people (over 50?) and vulnerable only as a matter of course. But it is just a guess.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

So I tested positive on Friday, not too bad but a massive headache the entire time. Nothing eases it. Still rather a headache than be in hospital struggling to breathe. 

[grobyfox1990]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

There. Are. No. Tests. Available. Online. "Sorry, there are no home delivery slots left for these tests right now". 

 

Pharmacies have signs up in windows saying they have none. 

 

Areas around the country don't even have PCR testing available at times. 

 

Every single news outlet and newspaper have said there is a shortage of tests. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/lateral-flow-tests-to-be-constrained-over-next-two-weeks-warns-sajid-javid

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/12/29/covid-testing-tatters-sajid-javid-blames-huge-surge-demand/

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-30/pressure-on-government-to-ramp-up-testing-capacity-amid-record-covid-levels

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/29/lateral-flow-test-shortage-is-a-supply-chain-disaster

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-great-concern-amid-shortage-of-coronavirus-tests-before-new-years-eve-parties-as-system-may-need-to-be-constrained-further-12506244

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-covid-test-shortage-brexit-b1983976.html

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/how-rapid-covid-tests-uk-6420081

 

The actual health secretary said in a letter to MP's they were "tripling the supply of lateral flow tests to 300 million per month by February", but added that as current shortages persist "we expect to need to constrain the system at certain points over the next two weeks".

 

Supply problems are also hitting the US who have shortages. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/28/politics/biden-covid-testing-shortage/index.html

 

But apparently I'm fear mongering. 

 

Stop being a weirdo. I'm not stopping people testing, the lack of kits is. 

 

 

 

 

That’s a series of local anecdotes that does not prove your point, followed by links from media outlets, who, lo and behold, make money from fear mongering. None of this is data to prove your point. 
 

you can easily post such evidence from media outlets and anecdotal evidence that the vaccine is unsafe. But we all know that is rubbish.

 

Once AGAIN…….please post actual data to support your claim that there’s ‘hardly any tests available’ - numbers showing actual supply compared to demand, numbers of orders unfulfilled, percentage of pharmacies with zero stock, levels present in households etc.  if you don’t have robust, nationwide data to support your claim, say so. None of your science club acolytes will think any less of you for making a claim you are unable to back up, I assure you 

Edited 3 January 2022 by grobyfox1990

[shade]

32 minutes ago, browniefox said:

So I tested positive on Friday, not too bad but a massive headache the entire time. Nothing eases it. Still rather a headache than be in hospital struggling to breathe. 

true.

Edited 3 January 2022 by shade

[grobyfox1990]

FYI @Babylon. Just created another covid account and ordered another box of 7 tests. But hey there’s ‘hardly any tests available’ 

 

welcome to this box if you want it!! 

Edited 3 January 2022 by grobyfox1990

[kenny]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

FYI @Babylon. Just created another covid account and ordered another box of 7 tests. But hey there’s ‘hardly any tests available’ 

 

welcome to this box if you want it!! 

Just checked they are now available again. Seems to be a trial and error job

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

That’s a series of local anecdotes that does not prove your point, followed by links from media outlets, who, lo and behold, make money from fear mongering. None of this is data to prove your point. 
 

you can easily post such evidence from media outlets and anecdotal evidence that the vaccine is unsafe. But we all know that is rubbish.

 

Once AGAIN…….please post actual data to support your claim that there’s ‘hardly any tests available’ - numbers showing actual supply compared to demand, numbers of orders unfulfilled, percentage of pharmacies with zero stock, levels present in households etc.  if you don’t have robust, nationwide data to support your claim, say so. None of your science club acolytes will think any less of you for making a claim you are unable to back up, I assure you 

I think you need to seek help. 

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, shade said:

What about this from the ONS..

 

"This publication states that between March and June 2020, there have been 46,736 deaths involving COVID-19. 4,476 of these deaths had no pre-existing conditions."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandhospitalisationsbypreexistingconditionandage

Hmmm. Time was when we’d think 4,476 deaths of perfectly healthy people was quite a lot. For comparison, it’s not far off the UK suicide toll in 2019.

Edited 3 January 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[ARM1968]

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I think you need to seek help. 

A lot of you need help frankly. I said as soon as Omicron was announced that all signs were that it was a mild disease and was immediately jumped on by the usual suspects in here. 
 

Lots of confirmation bias going on, rather than looking at all available data and reputable scientists on both sides of this. 
 

It’s has been, and remains, a bad time for all. Hopefully things will improve now through 2022. I do wish everyone well, vaxxed or unvaxxed and I wholeheartedly support everyone’s personal decision. 
 

I just hope that there won’t be long term repercussions for the vaccinated and that we can all get back to normal without any more artificial divides between us.